One gets to wonder if those who donate to the numerous special
interest, ultra-green, liberal, extremely well-heeled environmental
groups have any idea how and where their money is actually being
spent. All organizations of this nature are well versed in playing
on unsuspecting peoples emotions and have become masters
of deception. Possibly, many contributors do not want to hear
the true story, since they would hate to have their acquired warm
feeling dissipate.

A case in point involves the activities of the wealthiest player,
The Nature Conservancy. Although many of their dealings have been
suspect for years, they have managed to maintain their good guy
image. That is, until recent investigations by the prestigious
United States Senate Finance Committee headed up by Senator Charles
Grassley. The November 11, 2003 edition of the Washington Post
carried an article entitled Senate Panel Intensifies Its
Conservancy Probe, which did a splendid job of summarizing
this groups pursuit of internal audits and property records
which they had been seeking since last summer and presentation
of findings.

The article states that the Committees inquiries have
raised new questions in a wide range of areas. Additional information
is being sought, including internal Conservancy audits, Conservancy
land sales to government agencies, a $64 million land deal on
Marthas Vineyard involving talk show host David Letterman,
and details of sales, donations or purchases with certain private
individuals and companies. The Conservancy stated that eleven
of its land transactions were covered by confidentiality agreements.

The Washington Post independently obtained the audit
of a project on Virginias Eastern Shore, and found widespread
accounting problems and violations of Internal Revenue Service
regulations. The audit also stated that managers helped a contractor
hide personal income. This so-called Reserve was the highlight
of one of the Conservancys recent fund-raising letters which
incidentally was loaded with misrepresentations and distortions,
including the status of the featured black-crowned night heron
and the claim that it is the last intact, fully functioning barrier
island ecosystem on the Atlantic coast. And, of course, the usual
one of the worlds Last Great Places, which has
all the earmarks of a brainwashing effort designed to convince
potential contributors that there are only a few left.

Reportedly, the Senate inquiry began after a Post series
in May of 2003 reported on a wide range of questionable Nature
Conservancy practices, including selling properties to its trustees,
who reaped large tax breaks; engagement in multi-million dollar
business deals with companies and their executives while they
sat on the governing board advisory council; the aforementioned
Marthas Vineyard deal where they acquired 215 acres, and
immediately resold half in a complicated chain of transactions,
resulting in Letterman acquiring several ocean-side tracts to
be used as luxury home sites; and the generating of $32 million
in potential tax breaks for the Boston developers and their families,
who happen to be major Conservancy donors; the gift of certain
development rights on 11,000 acres of rugged canyon land near
Los Angeles, which allowed the donor to write off the value as
a tax-exempt donation; and additional widespread problems with
the Virginia Coast Reserve, including the ownership of numerous
real properties and capital assets that were never properly recorded,
several million dollars worth of land costs that could not be
identified either in the files or from county tax records, the
provision of free housing and car use to some employees (an IRS
violation), and allowing a farmer who oversaw property leases
to negotiate and manage six farm leases with his own father. Obviously,
in all of the above activities the Conservancy donors money
was wisely spent and the overriding concern was the welfare and
wise use for the resident wildlife species and their habitat and,
or course, saving the last great places.

According to the Senate Committee, the charity earlier offered
to release additional records they sought in exchange for confidentiality
protections modeled after the agreement entered into between
the Finance Committee and Enron Corporation. Very interesting.
Obviously Enron had set a fine example. Wisely, the Senators balked,
saying that the Enron deal was narrowly tailored to allow them
to access Enron data protected under IRS regulations.

The Post article stated that a number of whistle blowers
had approached the Committee. They, in turn, asked the Conservancy
to make a written public statement saying that they would not
take any action against cooperating former or current employees.
Hopefully, the whistle blowers will be heeded.

Interestingly, back in June 2003 the Post reported that
The Nature Conservancy, responding to congressional and media
criticism, decided to terminate several of its controversial practices,
including the lending of money to its executives and selling land
to trustees. This obviously represents an admission of their guilt.
Why did it take an investigation by the United States Congress
to encourage them to start cleaning up their act? Undoubtedly,
they were aware that they had been abusing the trust of their
loyal contributors. They realized that the jig was up.

The Conservancy said that, while an external review had found
no legal problems with the transactions, the board decided to
remove even the perception of conflict of interest or impropriety.
Just who conducted this external review and was it done in an
impartial and objective manner? Hopefully, the Senate Committee
will continue its efforts to get at the truth, rather than indulging
in the hand-slapping that is all too common. Conservancy spokesman
Jim Petterson was quoted as saying that these changes will better
equip the organization to address the worlds conservation
challenges. Who in the devil assigned these people such responsibilities?
As often happens, the arrogance of this and other members of the
ultra-liberal, green consortium comes to light. They truly are
the self-appointed saviors of the Planet Earth. Really now.

While on the subject of the Nature Conservancys wheeling
and dealings, some responsible body should look into their infiltration
into state conservation agencies throughout the country. It all
started back in the early 1990s with their inception of
the Natural Heritage program. What sounded like a noble undertaking,
with the goal being to better catalog information on the distribution
of native flora and fauna, turned into a horrible exercise of
power, which enabled the Conservancy to have a dramatic influence
on program direction. What started as a two-year contract, obviously
was designed in such a way as to insure permanency. Nature Conservancy
people somehow or other became permanent agency employees, and
the questions of whether any violations of civil service regulations
took place especially in respect to competitive positions, never
seem to have been addressed. Then there are the extremely cozy
relationships between the Conservancy and governmental officials
on up to the governor level, especially in respect to real estate
dealings and regulations that tread on peoples rights. Indeed,
investigations are sorely needed.

Hopefully, the Senate Finance Committee will faithfully do
its duty and insure that justice is served. One never can tell;
The Nature Conservancy might once again become a noble organization,
having a positive influence on the common-sensical protection
and management of the bountiful natural resources that bless this
country.

In the meantime, those contributors to the Conservancy or those
contemplating future donations should give a lot more thought
to the matter. The same applies to all the noble-sounding environmental
organizations and to any charity, for that matter. People do not
take full advantage of the most sophisticated piece of electronic
equipment ever devised namely the human brain and all too quickly
buy into things that give them a warm feeling. Incidentally, the
implications of such apply to voting for political candidates
or any decision a human being has to make.